The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, June 28, 2013

Read the article in the original עברית Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

Opposition
movements usually get public support and encouragement from the masses
because they challenge a corrupt and oppressive regime. This public
support is what brings the opposition movement to power, either by
democratic means or by violence. At first, the public is content because
it it sure that its preferred movement, which used to be the
opposition, will behave fairly and democratically towards the public
when it comes to power. But the moment the opposition movement gets to
sit behind the steering wheel it becomes a controlling elite, and it is
now responsible for imposing law and order on the residents. It is also
expected to supply all of the public's needs - food, drinking water,
employment, health services, infrastructure, and a hope that their
situation in the future will be better than in the past.The
tragedy that opposition movements frequently experience is that they
often lack the skills necessary to manage a state. This is because
during the period while they were engaged in the struggle to wrest power
from the previous regime, they were not building up the experience they
would need in order to rule effectively. But once they are in power,
they must provide solutions for problems
that were created, for the most part, by the previous regime. And when
the new regime needs to levy taxes and impose discipline on the
residents, the citizens begin to see it the same way as the previous
regime that was overthrown by the opposition. Since the new regime usually does not have magic solutions for the population's problems, it finds itself, after a short time,
a regime with dwindling legitimacy, especially if its leaders exploit
the privilege of their position. Power, as we all know, corrupts.This
deterministic development is playing out before our eyes everywhere
that Islamist movements have come into power. This is how it is in Iran,
in Gaza, in Tunisia, and lately in Egypt. President Mursi and the whole
Muslim Brotherhood movement along with him are confronted with ever
worsening problems, and next Sunday, the 30th of June, 2013, on the
anniversary of Mursi's ascendancy to the presidency, very large
demonstrations are planned, to protest the Muslim Brotherhood's
appropriation of the revolution, which was begun by liberal, modern,
secular youths who did not want Mubarak, but wanted the Brotherhood even
less.During
Mursi's year, Egypt has quickly slid into several extremely problematic
swamps. One of them is the Shi'ite-Sunni conflict, which got a shot in
the arm from the bloody events in the Syrian town of al-Qusayr, which
the Shi'ite Hizb'Allah took from the Sunni rebels, committing acts of
great cruelty and brutally trampling on the human rights of the citizens
who were besieged inside of al-Qusayr. On Thursday, June 20, a large
conference of the greatest Sunni religious authorities was
held in Cairo. At this conference, harsh criticism was voiced regarding
acts perpetrated by Shi'ites, especially in Syria. Sunni sheikhs
threaten to slaughter the Hizb'Allah fighters because they - being
Shi'ite - are infidels. President Mursi publicly declared the end of
diplomatic ties between Egypt and Syria, the closing of the embassy in
Damascus and the return of Egyptian diplomats from the capital of Syria.But
this phenomenon is not limited to Syria; it has also spread to Egypt.
On Sunday, June 23, a group of Salafists broke into the house of Hassan Shehata, the head of the small Shi'ite community of Egypt, in the village of Zawiyat Abu Musallamnear Giza, slaughtering him together with four more members of his
community. Nine others were injured in the event. Egypt was shocked to
its foundations for a number of reasons, primarily because of the
Salafists' audacity, who think in seventh century terms and
behave according to principles and modes of behavior that were common 1400 years ago. They
present a challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood rule, which is based on
the application of Islam in the modern, current world, not on the desire
to return to square one of Islamic history. Many Egyptians fear that
their country will slide into a condition similar to the
boiling swamps which are Syria and Iraq, and they view the slaughter as
a horrific event and one that might happen again, next time to the
Copts or anyone else who has political objections to the Salafists'
ways.These things have
taken on extra gravity because this week, a number of additional
distressing events has occurred regarding the Sunni-Shi'a conflict. One
is in the city of Sidon in Lebanon, where a Sunni Salafi Sheikh by the
name of Ahmed al-Asir declared that since the army in Lebanon is an
organization under Hizb'Allah Shi'ite leadership (a true fact that
everyone in Lebanon knows very well), he calls on all the soldiers in
the army to desert. The Lebanese version of conscientious objection. In
response, the army attacked the sheikh's stronghold, and the ensuing
clash resulted in the death of 17 soldiers
and tens of the sheikh's supporters. This event is another in the
unending war between neighborhoods of the northern port city of Tripoli,
because of the Sunni support of the rebels in Syria, and the Alawites
support of Asad.

The
second event occurred in London near Hyde Park, on Edgeware Road, which
is the center of the Islamic scene in the capital of Britain. The
Salafi preacher Anjem Choudary - whose words call to mind the speeches
of bin Laden - led a demonstration of Sunnis against Asad and
Hizb'Allah, which degenerated into fistfights and yelling back and forth
between the Sunni demonstrators and the supporters of Asad and Shi'ite
Hizb'Allah, many of whom are Iranian. This event shows how connected the
expatriate communities are to the lands that they came from, and how willing they are to bring the customary Middle Eastern way of dealing with conflicts to Europe.
In my opinion the government of Britain must construe the event very
clearly: The Middle East is coming to the center of London, and if the
authorities in Britain continue to ignore reality, then the phenomenon
of mutual slaughter which is the usual way of dealing with religious and
sectarian conflicts in the Middle East will spread to the United
Kingdom. Have we forgotten the slaughter of the British soldier in
London about a month ago? And
in Egypt the problems only get worse. Two weeks ago, Ethiopia announced
that it is beginning work on the "Renaissance Dam", on the Blue Nile,
the main source of the Nile flowing from Ethiopia to South Sudan, to
Sudan and then Egypt. If indeed the dam is built and Ethiopia stops the
flow of water to these countries, this will be a death sentence for the
residents of Egypt, because the Nile will become a stinking puddle of
stagnant water, and the dangerous diseases of the intestines and eyes
that are already problematic will become a catastrophic danger. Mursi
related to this matter in his recent speeches, and the tone of his voice
becomes strident whenever he talks about it, an indication of how
distressful this matter is for Egypt. He threatens Ethiopia with
expressions like "all options are on the table" as if he has the
military option to deal with the dam. He claims that every drop of the
Nile's water is a matter of life and death, a real existential
threat, and that Egypt will keep all options open in order to safeguard
its "aquatic security". The Egyptian in the street knows the bitter
truth: Mursi has no way of forcing Ethiopia to allow the waters of the
Nile to flow down river, and his threats are just empty bluffs. But
Mursi is also confronted with several internal legal problems. There is
a lawsuit against him for escaping legal custody in January of 2011,
when members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood broke into several
prisons in Egypt and freed hundreds of detainees that Mubarak had
imprisoned in order to put down the demonstrations against him. If Mursi
fails in his legal battle, the court might declare that his candidacy
was illegal and annul the results of the elections that brought him to
the president's seat. The Egyptian court can do this, since that is
exactly what the legal system did when it dispersed the parliament for procedural reasons, when the Muslim Brotherhood had won almost half of the seats.The
second problem that Mursi is confronted with is a piece of information
that is spreading all throughout Egypt, which is that the candidate who
really won a majority of Egyptian votes in the elections for the
presidency was not Mursi, but Shafiq, the competing candidate, but
because of demands made by Barack Obama,
the president of the United States, General Tantawi, then head of the
Supreme Military Council, was pressured into falsifying the results of
the elections in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. This information has
spread throughout Egypt, and many Egyptian citizens believe that it is
true, since it fits very well with the conspiracy theory claiming that
foreign forces are controlling Egypt for their own gain, and that this
is the source of the country's troubles. People believe this because it
correlates with the belief that President Obama is energetically
promoting the Muslim Brotherhood as the sort of Islam that the United
States can live with. This is the reason that Obama met with the
leadership of the Brotherhood during his visit in Cairo in June 2009 as a
visitor of Mubarak (an event that was considered then like sticking a
knife in the Egyptian president's back), and this is the reason that
Obama has surrounded himself with Muslim Brotherhood people who have
become part of the White House staff (see here or here).

Another
problem concerning Mursi these days is the approaching month of
Ramadan, which begins, apparently, on the seventh of July. This year,
Ramadan in Egypt will be especially difficult. The fast will take place
during very long, hot days compared to years when Ramadan occurs in the
winter. In Ramadan, especially at night, people throng into the streets,
prices of food and clothing go up because of the rise in demand, and
security forces will find it very difficult to control the masses.
Heightened religious consciousness during Ramadan might also increase
the tension between the religious groups, especially between the
Salafists and the various branches of government; conflict may erupt in
the form of tumultuous street riots and many casualties may result.The Emir of Qatar Resigns Meanwhile, an event occurred this week that
is almost unprecedented in the Arab world. The ruler of a country has
decided, on his own initiative, to give up power. This occurred in
Qatar, the most influential country
in the Arab world today, when Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani decided
to pass the reigns of power to his 33-year old son, Tamim. The prince
did not explain the reasons for his decision, and the Arab world is
buzzing with rumors and various interpretations. One rumor is that he is
not healthy, since he has already undergone two kidney operations, and
there is a history of dementia in the family as well. Therefore, he
decided to pass the rule on to his son while he still could, and even if
he is not healthy, he will be able to accompany his son for a
significant period of time. In contrast, King Hussein of Jordan
appointed his son as king only a few days before he died, which
negatively influenced Abdullah the Second's ability to function, at least in the beginning of his reign.Another
interpretation is that the Emir of Qatar wanted to exit the political
stage at the apex of his power, after he had proved that he could take
down dictators like Mubarak, Qadhaffi, bin 'Ali, Saleh and Asad, whether
by means of money or by means of the al-Jazeera channel, which incited
the Arab masses against their rulers. According to another opinion, he
wants to spend the rest of his life engaged in charitable enterprises so that he will go
down in history as the greatest Islamic philanthropist in the world.
Others speak about his desire to show his colleagues, other Arab rulers,
that an Arab ruler does not have to remain stuck to his seat until his
death or until he is overthrown, thereby presenting a new model of Arab
leadership that knows how to retire in an orderly way too.Even
if I do accept some of these hypotheses, in my opinion, the reason for
the Emir of Qatar's retirement is totally different. He is the person
who is most identified with the political success of the Muslim
Brotherhood and the "Arab Spring", which has since become a bloodbath,
costing until now, one hundred thousand lives in Syria, fifty thousand
in Libya, three million Syrian refugees and the violence continues and
the sword is still unsheathed. He has ultimately understood that he was
the one who incited the Middle East and has caused it to deteriorate
into the wars of Sunni against Shi'ite, tribal wars, and the imposition
of political Islam on some of the countries. Now, since he cannot douse
the flames, he does not want to be in the center of focus when Egypt
collapses on the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is in power today
largely owing to his influence. And so that he will not be in the
picture when the disaster happens, he preferred to pass the rule on to
his son a week before the demonstrations break out in Egypt on the 30th
of June; demonstrations which, if they heat up enough, might bring Mursi
to the same end that Mubarak had. The son, Tamim, is not identified
with his father's policies, so Qatar may emerge unscathed from the
criticism about the disaster that sheikh Hamed caused to the Arab world
in general and to the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Whatever
the reason for Sheikh Hamed's resignation, it is very important to
watch the policies that Qatar develops in the future, under the rule of
Tamim. Will it continue to shake up the Arab world with the money,
weapons and ammunition that Qatar has been sending to every country
where there is a chance to promote the Islamists, or will it stop doing this
and leave Arab societies to their own rulers. It is important to monitor
Tamim's international orientation, because Qatar has the largest
military American airfield in the Gulf, and Qatar - together with Iran
and Russia - is one of the three largest suppliers of natural gas in the
world.A
few years ago Qatar had a "honeymoon" with the Iranian regime, and it
is important to watch for the possibility that Qatar will return to the
Iranian bosom. This sort of thing could occur if the White House
continues its policy of appeasement toward the Iranian regime. In that
case the Gulf states - and especially Qatar - might conclude that the
United States is too weak to depend on, and it will bet on the winning
horse in the Middle East. This matter is, of course, connected with
events in Syria, because if Asad wins the war, the Iranians will come
out on top, and the Sunni world, under the leadership of the Muslim
Brotherhood will be dealt a mortal blow.Israel
must monitor the developments closely and be ready to take the
necessary steps to safeguard its security vigorously and
dispassionately. The region is closer than ever to a many-layered and
many-sided crisis because there are too many centers of tension that
neither Israel nor the West can influence. The Arab and Islamic world is
headed for an explosion, and Israel must defend itself from the
shrapnel that will fly in every direction.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar(Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and
Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the
Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University,
Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political
discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic
arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally
Zahav with permission from the author.

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center
for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan
University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

Barack
Obama’s Internal Revenue Service is targeting certain Jewish advocacy
groups which disagree with Obama’s anti-Israel positions on the
so-called “disputed territories.” In a document entitled “Be On the
Lookout” (or BOLO for short), which the IRS disclosed publicly on June
24th, the tax enforcement agency instructed its agents reviewing
applications for tax-exempt status to be on the lookout for
applications from organizations that “deal with disputed territories in
the Middle East” and “may be inflammatory.”

A pattern has emerged with respect to the IRS’s special focus on
groups that were outspoken in opposing President Obama’s demands that
Israel freeze its construction of settlements over the pre-June 1967
boundary line between Israel and the West Bank and West and East
Jerusalem, known as the “Green Line.”

One of the targeted groups, Z Street, filed a lawsuit against the IRS
in August 2010, alleging that the IRS subjected the pro-Zionist group
to additional scrutiny in a discriminatory fashion because of its strong
pro-Israel ideological views.

Z Street, a nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public
about the facts relating to the Middle East, particularly as relate to
the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, alleged in its complaint the
following:

The case is brought because, through its corporate
counsel, Z STREET was informed explicitly by an IRS Agent on July 19,
2010, that approval of Z STREET’s application for tax-exempt status has
been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS
policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with
Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related
organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office
to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the
Administration’s public policies.” These statements by an IRS official
that the IRS maintains special policies governing applications for
tax-exempt status by organizations which deal with Israel, and which
requires particularly intense scrutiny of such applications and an
enhanced risk of denial if made by organizations which espouse or
support positions inconsistent with the Obama administration’s Israel
policies, constitute an explicit admission of the crudest form of
viewpoint discrimination, and one which is both totally un-American and
flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The IRS has now released the smoking gun
document confirming Z Street’s suspicions. It demonstrates that the IRS
was not administering its decisions on applications for tax-exempt
charitable and educational organization status on a content neutral
basis. Moreover, its judgments on what content “may be inflammatory” are
inherently subjective.

On its face, there is simply no legal justification for why the IRS
would use “disputed territories,” a foreign policy issue, to evaluate a
group’s domestic political activity for purposes of determining
eligibility for tax-exempt status. Therefore, without some other
compelling content-neutral reason to justify its actions, the IRS’s
limitation of the issuance of tax-exempt status to a nonprofit
educational organization on the basis of the substantive views held by
the persons who operate the organization — views that differ from the
Obama administration’s foreign policies — constitutes an
unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech of such persons.

The IRS has reportedly offered alternative rationales for its
position. First, it apparently tried to argue that Z Street could be
ineligible for tax-exempt status if it were engaging in lobbying, or if
it were what the IRS calls an “action organization,” which is the case
when the only way to accomplish the purpose of the organization is
through legislation. These rationales do not apply to an organization
like Z Street, whose website, public awareness campaigns, and other
activities are educational ones conducted in conjunction with informed
advocacy of public policy positions. Z Street has stated that it is not
engaged in any lobbying activities. Z Street has also stated that none
of its purposes can be accomplished through legislative action. Without
any evidence to the contrary, the IRS should have ended its heavy-handed
probe right there. But it didn’t.

The most absurd alternative rationale put forward by the IRS involves
its purported concerns about possible funding of terrorism. The IRS
claimed, according to an article published on Jewish Press.com, that
since Israel is a country where there is a “heightened risk of
terrorism,” Z Street required special scrutiny because it might be
providing funds to terrorist groups. As the Jewish Press article stated,
“of course, Z STREET doesn’t fund anything, and then there is the
little matter of Israel being the object of terrorism, not the source of terrorism” (emphasis original).

Moreover, when it comes to Islamist charities, some of which have
been directly implicated in the funding of terrorist groups such as
Hamas, President Obama himself has taken a very different stance. In his
June 2009 speech that he delivered to the Muslim world in Cairo, Obama
apologized that his country’s “rules on charitable giving have made it
harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.” Obama then
promised to change all that: “I’m committed to work with American
Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat [the Islamic duty of
charitable contributions].”

Obama made good on his promise. After the Council on American–Islamic
Relations (CAIR), an avowedly anti-Israel Islamist advocacy group, had
temporarily lost its tax-exempt status because of its failure to file
annual tax reports as required by federal law, its representatives
visited the White House. Those visits paid off. The IRS sent CAIR’s
national office a letter in June 2012 reinstating its exemption even
though gaps remained in its tax return filings.

According to information contained in an Investor’s Business Daily
editorial published earlier this month, Obama administration officials
“in 2012 met inside the White House with CAIR officials, according to
Secret Service visitors logs. In the months leading up to the IRS
decision, in fact, the Obama administration held ‘hundreds’ of
closed-door meetings with CAIR — including many in the White House.”

Referring to an article in the Daily Caller posted in early June
2012, Investor’s Business Daily stated that many of the White House
meetings occurred the same month the IRS reversed its decision. In other
words, CAIR was given special access to high level Obama administration
officials to secure its tax-exempt status although it was not in
compliance with basic filing requirements, while Z Street was being
given the runaround because of the views it espoused in opposition to
Obama’s policies towards Israel.

Consider too that CAIR had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in
the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development terrorist funding
case in which the Holy Land Foundation, set up expressly to accept
zakat, was convicted in 2008 by a federal jury for giving more than $12
million to Hamas.

Thus, when it came to placating Islamists, President Obama seemed to
have forgotten that all those tough rules on charitable giving exist for
a good reason – to prevent front groups posing as “charities” from
funneling donations to terrorists. Yet, his IRS suddenly remembered the
terrorist concerns when it came to applying the rules against groups sticking up for Israel, which is in the crosshairs of the true terrorists.

This record makes a mockery of the soon-to-be National Security
Adviser Susan Rice’s declaration to reporters, during her farewell news
briefing as the United States’ United Nations ambassador, that the Obama
administration has stood “shoulder to shoulder with Israel on
principle.”

Making matters even worse, Rice’s nominated successor at the UN,
Samantha Power, will be anything but standing “shoulder to shoulder with
Israel.” More likely, she will be giving the cold shoulder to Israel if
she becomes the next UN ambassador, since she believes that America’s
foreign policy decision-makers have too often deferred “reflexively to
Israeli security assessments.” One way for the Obama administration to
address what she considered a “longstanding foreign policy flaw” – “the
degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the ‘national
interest’ as a whole is defined and pursued” – is for Obama’s IRS to go
after those “special interests.”

President Obama’s IRS has unconstitutionally sought to use its
discretion in granting tax-exempt status, which affects the ability of
donors to make tax-deductible contributions, in order to punish groups
which do not hew to the Obama administration’s foreign policy position
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This gross abuse of power must be
stopped, and the persons responsible must be held fully accountable for
their actions.

by Zach PontzA new book written by the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc intelligence
officer ever to defect to the West claims that a secret 1970s-era KGB
plot is the cause for much of the Islamic anger directed towards Israel
and the United States, the UK’s Daily Mail reports.

Romanian Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa writes that high ranking Soviet
politician Yuri Andropov, through an initiative to seed the Muslim world
with anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment, sent hundreds of agents
and thousands of copies of propaganda literature to Muslim countries
during the decade.

According to Pacepa: “By 1972, Andropov’s
disinformation machinery was working around the clock to persuade the
Islamic world that Israel and the United States intended to transform
the rest of the world into a Zionist fiefdom.

“According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a petri dish in
which the KGB community could nurture a virulent strain of
America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought.”

Pacepa headed Romania’s spy apparatus and secret police, the DIE, before he secured political asylum in the U.S. in 1978. The book, Disinformation, written with University
of Mississippi law professor Ronald Rychlak, is the first time he has
so thoroughly addressed the secrets he was privy to during his service.

Andropov’s program was in revenge for Israel’s humiliating defeat of Soviet allies Syria and Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, Pacepa explains. Part of the plan included disseminating the
first Arabic translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a
Russian-forged 1905 propaganda book that alleged Jews controlled the
world.

As part of his role in Romania, Pacepa writes that he was ordered to disseminate the document.

“During my later years in Romania,” he recalls, “every month
the DIE disseminated thousands of copies throughout its Islamic sphere
of influence. In the meetings I had with my counterparts in the
Hungarian and Bulgarian services, with whom I enjoyed particularly
close relations at that time, I learned that they were also sending
such influence agents into their own Islamic spheres of influence.”

The KGB took “secret credit” for a host of terror attacks
against Israeli targets in the 1970s, Pacepa claims, listing eleven such
incidents, including the May 30, 1972 attack on Ben Gurion Airport,
which left 22 dead and 76 wounded.

Pacepa and Rychlak conclude that much of the anti-American
sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere can be traced back to the
Soviet program.

According to the authors, the Kennedy-era Soviet premier
Nikita Khrushchev’s disinformation campaigns “widened the gap between
Christianity and Judaism,” and “Andropov’s disinformation turned the
Islamic world against the United States and ignited the international
terrorism that threatens us today.”

Once again we are all invited to a repeat performance of the age-old "negotiations with the Palestinians -- now and forever."

We have seen this
performance many times in the past, and it has never had a happy ending.
At the end of the show, we have always regretted having paid such a
high price for the ticket. The actors may change, the sets may be
different, but our enemies' sea of hate continues to flow. Even Greek
philosopher Heraclitus (famous for saying "no man ever steps in the same
river twice") would not be able to understand how intelligent people
can voluntarily jump into the same turbulent, dangerous waters time and
time again.

No marketing slogan or
presidential pyrotechnics can hide the fact that the Palestinian
leadership, whichever leadership it may be, will never accept Israel's
existence as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as the capital. It will never
relinquish its demand for the right of return. Every Palestinian leader
knows that every concession brings him closer to his demise. There will
always be a "shahid" (martyr) glad to take to heaven anyone seen by
radical Islam as an infidel.

Every time the U.S.
runs into difficulties, whether domestically or abroad, it immediately
focuses all its energies focus on Israel and the Palestinian issue. It
is a clearly Pavlovian response. This conditioned response rests on the
assumption that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will put the
entire Western world out of its misery and allow the U.S. to
rehabilitate its weakened status. Russia, under the leadership of
Vladimir Putin, shows very little respect for the U.S. and provokes it
incessantly, as though it were a tired, hibernating bear. Putin has
learned to identify the limits of President Barack Obama's ability to
use force, and he is grinding the U.S.'s power advantage to dust. U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry, instead of investing his efforts to
resolving the U.S.'s real diplomatic problems, is wasting his time on
futile trips between Ramallah and Jerusalem. Kerry's efforts will not
help rehabilitate the U.S.'s standing, and could actually lead to
unnecessary bloodshed.

The State of Israel,
the American superpower's most strong and stable ally, has no choice but
to play the negotiations game. Sometimes a true and essential
friendship comes with a price. But it is extremely important not to fall
back into the delusional trap of repeating historic mistakes like
trading land for peace, freezing settlement construction or releasing
Palestinian prisoners. The Jewish people congregated in the land of
Israel cannot become addicted to dreams. The Jewish people must always
be prepared to defend their existence.

For decades now, we
have been terrorized, mainly by leftists, with the notion that time is
not on our side. That is nonsense. Time certainly is on our side. The
State of Israel is growing stronger while the Palestinian Authority is
collapsing. Every new home built in Judea and Samaria ensures our
possession of our homeland. Intelligent Israelis have already understood
that every piece of land that we hand over to a foreign regime will
turn into a frontline terror base. It is frightening to think, in light
of recent events, where we would be today if we had handed the Golan
Heights over to the Syrians in exchange for peace with the mass murderer
Bashar Assad.

The power of Israel's
leadership depends on its citizens' endurance. The citizens of Israel
are determined, strong, and convinced that it would be a bad idea to buy
into the same old used merchandise of a delusional peace agreement.
Peace is not at our door. It will arrive only when our enemies finally
understand that it is in their best interests too, and that the people
of Israel will live in their historic homeland forever and ever.

The only way to undermine Hamas
is by offering the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas. Many
Palestinians do not regard Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah as a better alternative
to the radical Islamist movement.

Recent developments on a number of fronts in the Middle East suggest
that Hamas is beginning to lose both power and popularity among Arabs
and Muslims.

Of course this is good news for moderate Arabs and Muslims, as well as for stability in the region.

This change does not, however, mean that Hamas will vanish sometime
in the near future. Nor does it mean that peace will prevail tomorrow
between between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel.

The only way to undermine Hamas is by offering the Palestinians a
better alternative to Hamas. Many Palestinians still do not regard
Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction as a better alternative to the radical
Islamist movement.

In recent weeks and months, Hamas has found itself embroiled in a
number of local and regional disputes that seem to have had a negative
impact on its standing among Palestinians and Arabs.

After losing the backing of Iran and Syria because of its support for
the rebels fighting against the regime of Bashar Assad, Hamas has now
lost its key supporter and financier in the Arab world, Sheikh Hamad bin
Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar.

Khalifa's decision to hand powers to his son, Sheikh Tamim, has left
many Hamas leaders worried about the future relations between their
movement and Qatar.

Noting that Qatar had long embraced and supported Hamas, leaders of
the movement voiced hope that Sheik Tamim would follow in the footsteps
of his father.

Under Hamad bin Khalifa, Qatar was the first Arab country to receive
Hamas leaders after they were expelled from Jordan by the late King
Hussein in the late 1990's.

Khalifa was also the first Arab ruler to visit the Gaza Strip earlier
this year and offer hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Hamas
government.

Hamas leaders said this week that they are now not sure whether the
new ruler of Qatar will fulfill his father's financial pledges.

Meanwhile, Hamas seems to have gotten itself into trouble with many
Egyptians, who accuse the movement of meddling in their internal
affairs.

Egyptian media reports and politicians say Hamas has been dispatching
weapons and gunmen to Egypt to support Muslim Brotherhood President
Mohamed Morsi, who is facing growing discontent at home.

When Hamas leaders visited Cairo last week, they were forced to flee
the hotel where they were staying after hundreds of angry Egyptian
demonstrators protested their presence on Egyptian soil.

Hamas's support for the anti-Assad rebels in Syria has also resulted
in a crisis between the movement and the Iranian-backed terror group
Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Some Lebanese have accused Hamas of arming anti-Assad radical
Islamists and setting up terror cells in Palestinian refugee camps in
Lebanon.

Unconfirmed reports said that Hizbullah has asked Hamas leaders based in Beirut to leave the country.

Musa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official, this week made a secret
visit to Beirut in a bid to defuse tensions between his movement and
Hizbullah.

Hamas is also facing many problems at home.

Hamas's relations with other terror groups in the Gaza Strip have also recently witnessed a serious deterioration.

The Islamic Jihad organization decided this week to sever ties with
Hamas over the death of a top Jihad operative, Raed Jundiyeh.

Jundiyeh was killed when Hamas policemen tried to arrest him last weekend, sparking a sharp crisis between the two parties.

In addition, Hamas has been forced to deal with Al-Qaeda-affiliated
Salafi followers who think that the Hamas leadership is not radical
enough, especially with regards to imposing strict Islamic laws and
fighting the "Zionist enemy."

Hamas officials admit that all these these developments have had a
negative impact on their movement's standing among Palestinians and
Arabs.

Hamas's failure to improve the living conditions of Palestinians in
the Gaza Strip has also driven away an increased number of Palestinians
-- in addition to reports about fierce internal squabbling among Hamas's
top brass and the absence of a unified policy toward many controversial
issues plaguing the Palestinians and the Arab world.

In a move reflecting Hamas's growing predicament, the movement was
forced this week to welcome Palestinian singer Mohamed Assaf, who won
the popular Arab Idol contest held by Saudi Arabia's MBC TV station.

Although Hamas leaders have condemned the contest as "anti-Islamic"
and "morally corrupt," they were forced to voice their support for the
23-year-old Assaf in the wake of the overwhelming and unprecedented
support he received from Palestinians.

When Hamas leaders begin to "sweat," it should be seen as a positive
development in the Palestinian arena. It now remains to be seen whether
Palestinians will take advantage of the situation and turn against
Hamas.

It might not have occurred to the AKP government that unless it changes course, it could suffer the same fate as other regimes.

By now, it must have dawned on even the most dim-witted European
politician that there is a discrepancy between Turkey's rhetoric and
performance -- at least, as far as Europe is concerned. Turkey's EU
Minister Egemen Bağış has from time to time entertained us with his
various distortions of reality, including his recent claim that "the sun
of Europe rises from Istanbul every morning nowadays." But the events
that have unfolded in Turkey in recent weeks present a different
picture.

In 2006 Turkey and the US agreed that Turkey's EU accession is a
strategic priority for both countries, and three years ago the UK
renewed its strategic partnership agreement with Turkey. On this
occasion, David Cameron underlined that the UK would remain Turkey's
"strongest possible advocate" for EU membership. A recent photo posted
on the Twitter account of the Turkish Ambassador to Washington, Namık
Tan, showing US Secretary of State John Kerry, with his hand on British
Ambassador Peter Westmacott's shoulder, talking with Namık Tan,
indicates that the three are still hugger mugger.

Whatever Turkey might profess, the drift of Turkey's foreign policy,
not to speak of its domestic policy, is towards the Muslim world and the
Middle East. In an interview with the Cairo Review in March last year,
Foreign Minister Davutoğlu explained that Turkey's policy of strategic
depth, which has been dubbed "neo-Ottoman," rests on an engagement with
countries with which Turkey shares a common past and geography as well
as shared interests and common ideals. He envisaged Turkey utilizing its
geopolitical position in the midst of Afro-Eurasia to set the
parameters of a new global order.

In a speech made last April at a Justice and Development Party [AKP]
congress in Konya, Davutoğlu was more specific and spoke of the party's
historic mission to create a new world order [nizam-i âlem, the Ottoman concept of a world order under Islam] with the emergence of Turkey as a global power.

This hangs together with Davutoğlu's Sarajevo speech in October 2009,
where he made clear that the goal of Turkish foreign policy was once
again to make the Balkans, the Caucasus and Middle East, together with
Turkey, the center of world politics. This March, in an address to the
party faithful in Bursa, the Foreign Minister stated that the last
century was a parenthesis and that Turkey would again unite Sarajevo
with Damascus and Benghazi with Erzurum and Batumi.

This theme was echoed by Prime Minister Erdoğan recently, when on his
return from North Africa he sent greetings to Istanbul's brother cities
Sarajevo, Baku, Beirut, Skopje, Damascus, Gaza, Mecca and Medina, but
with no mention of Europe. According to Nuray Mert, Associate Professor
of Political Science at Istanbul University, who has previously clashed
with Erdoğan, many observers have failed to recognize that
neo-Ottomanism is an irredentist version of Turkish nationalism.

In a keynote speech at the Istanbul Forum last October, Erdoğan's
chief advisor Ibrahim Kalın spoke of a new geopolitical context and of a
conscious decision by Turkish policy-makers to redefine Turkey's
strategic priorities in the 21st century. According to Kalın,
Turkey is beginning to read history from a non-Eurocentric point of
view: the European model of secular democracy and pluralism has little
traction in the Arab and larger Muslim world.

In a television interview early this year, Prime Minister Erdoğan
mentioned that he had told Russian President Vladimir Putin that if
Turkey were admitted to the Shanghai Five [Shanghai Cooperation
Organization], they would say goodbye to the EU: "The Shanghai Five is
better and more powerful and we have common values with them."

After the clashes between demonstrators and police around Gezi Park
in Istanbul, the European Parliament a fortnight ago passed a strongly
worded resolution, expressing not only deep concern at the
disproportionate and excessive use of force by the Turkish police but
also reiterating the rules of the club that Turkey ostensibly aspires to
join.

The resolution pointed out that freedom of assembly, freedom of
expression and freedom of the press are fundamental principles of the EU
and reminded Turkey that in an inclusive, pluralist democracy all
citizens should feel represented. Furthermore, Prime Minister Erdoğan
was urged to take a unifying and conciliatory position.

Apart from agreeing to abide by the decision of Istanbul's
administrative court on the future of Gezi Park, and, if necessary, to
hold a plebiscite, Erdoğan's response was predictable. He refused to
accept the European Parliament's decision; he said it was both not
binding for Turkey and "anti-democratic." Characteristically, he added,
"Is it your place to pass such a resolution?"

The EU's decision to open one more negotiating chapter with Turkey,
but to postpone the opening until October, means that there is still a
slender thread binding Turkey to the EU. But Prime Minister Erdoğan's
response to the demonstrations could usher in a new era of intolerance
and repression.

At a number of mass rallies under the slogan "Respect for the
National Will," Erdoğan has claimed that the widespread unrest is the
result of an conspiracy between "the traitors inside and their partners
outside" to destabilize the Turkish economy and the government's
achievements. More specifically, he has accused "the interest rate
lobby," which is understood to be a reference to the Jews. Yeni Şafak,
an Islamist daily, has even alleged that the protests are an American
Jewish plot organized by the AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs
Committee] and the American Enterprise Institute.

A round-up of protesters has already begun and the Turkish
intelligence service [MIT] has launched an investigation into foreign
links. Moreover, Interior Minister Muammer Güler has spoken of the need
for a regulation to take action against those who provoke the public via
the social media. A number of television channels have also been fined
for their coverage of the Gezi Park protests, as the Radio and
Television Supreme Council [RTÜK] consider this "harming the physical,
moral and mental development of children and young people."

Foreign Minister Davutoğlu in his interview with Cairo Review said
that history is replete with examples of regimes failing to survive when
they lost their legitimacy in the eyes of their people. It might not
have occurred to the AKP government that unless it changes course, it
could suffer the same fate.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3793/sunrise-over-istanbulCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’scalls
for a freeze on Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem
while Arab construction, which far exceeds Jewish development, continues
unfettered – are clearly biased.

Arabs
claim that Jewish settlements “change the status” of the Territories
and represent a distortion of the Oslo Accords. The phrase applies to
acts that change the political status of the disputed territory – such
as outright Israeli annexation, or a Palestinian declaration of
statehood. Since Jewish settlements are legal, any halt in construction
should be reciprocated.

The
Oslo Accords do not forbid Israeli or Arab settlement activity.
Charging that further Jewish settlement activity preempts final
negotiations by establishing realities, requires reciprocity.

If
Jews were forcibly expelled from the West Bank in 1948 during a war of
aggression aimed at them, then these Territories must be considered
disputed Territories, at the least.

The
Israeli-Palestinian border dispute is like every other major and minor
boundary dispute around the globe. Since the West Bank was redeemed in
1967 in a war of self defense and is not “Occupied Territory” gained
illegally by a bellicose power, and since this fact is recognized in the
wording of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 that call for a settlement to
institute “secure and recognized boundaries.”

According to David Bar-Ilan, a former policy planning official, the tempo of Arab construction is “more than 10 times the number of buildings under construction [in the Territory] than those approved [by the Israeli government] for the [Jewish] settlers.”

by IPT NewsA Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist died, and a second
terrorist injured, this weekend in Gaza at the hands of Hamas
operatives.

An angry PIJ sought revenge – by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

It started Saturday
when Hamas police reportedly wanted to arrest a drug suspect in the
town of Shuja'iyya. But PIJ commander Raed Jundiya, a friend of the
suspect, reportedly intervened. He was shot and killed in a resulting skirmish. At his funeral Sunday, PIJ military wing chief Mohammad al-Harazin was injured when he was hit by a car driven by Hamas members.

Jundiya's death "represents a major service to the Zionist enemy,
provided completely free of charge, whether deliberately or not, because
the martyr was, as everybody knows, on the top of the Zionists'
hit-list as he headed the Brigades' rocket unit," a Hamas statement said.

While PIJ said it would break off relations with Hamas, it fired at
least six rockets at civilian communities in southern Israel. Two were
picked off by Israel's Iron Dome defense system. No injuries were
reported from the other four. Israel struck back, hitting two arms depots and a rocket launching site in Gaza.

Rocket fire from Gaza dropped off considerably since November's Pillar of Defense
campaign targeted the infrastructure used in the incessant attacks.
Since it governs Gaza, Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rocket
fire coming from the territory. So while PIJ's retaliation for Jundiya's
death may seem disconnected, Times of Israel reporter Avi Issacharoff writes
that it is Hamas that suffers most from Israeli retaliation, including a
possible closing of border crossings which could create shortages on
fuel and other supplies. That could cut into popular support for Hamas
among Palestinians.

According
to a Libyan intelligence document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including
Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012
terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where several
Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were
killed.

On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate,
quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the
Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i. Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif,
Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the
nation’s Minister of Interior.

It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation,
specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the
consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those
arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the
jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law”), were
arrested.

Image of the Libyan intelligence document

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi
cell members “confessed to very serious and important information
concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the
event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi….
And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell
members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi;
preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the
satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…”

It should be noted that these findings are unsurprising: the
supremacism of prominent Brotherhood figure Safwat Hegazi is such that
he publicly declares the Brotherhood “will rule the world“;
Saudi Mansour’s hate-mongering, pro-Brotherhood TV station repeatedly
aired footage of the YouTube Muhammad movie inciting violence around the
Muslim world; popular Sheikh Muhammad Hassan holds that smiling to
non-Muslims is forbidden, except when trying to win them over to Islam; and Sheikh Hazim Abu Ismail is simply an openly anti-freedom, anti-infidel religious leader.

As for President Morsi, a video made during the consulate attack
records people speaking in the Egyptian dialect: as they approach the
beleaguered U.S. compound, one of them yells to the besiegers, “Don’t
shoot—Dr. Morsi sent us!”

by MEMRIDuring the past week, U.S. Ambassador
to Egypt Anne Patterson has been under fire, mainly from Egyptian opposition
circles, following statements she made on June 18, 2013 in Cairo, at a conference
at the Ibn Khaldun Research Center, which is headed by Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim.
According to Egyptian media, Patterson said at the conference (which was closed
to the press) that "Mursi is not Mubarak" and that "there is no
room for comparison because Mubarak was in power for 30 years, which ended with
his ouster, while Mursi is an elected president who has yet to complete his
first year [in office]..." With Egypt currently in turmoil in anticipation
of protests calling for Mursi's ouster on the first anniversary of his
presidency (June 30, 2013),[1] the statements
attributed to Patterson were seen as supporting the Mursi regime and the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB), and opposing the popular protests planned by his opponents.

Patterson
seated next to S'ad Al-Din Ibrahim at the Ibn Khaldun Research Center
conference (Image: Ibnkhalduncenter.org, June 18, 2013)Oppositionists
in Egypt condemned Patterson's statements, seeing them as an attack on the
forces of the revolution and a blatant interference in the country's internal
affairs on behalf of the regime, and advised the ambassador to shut up.
Oppositionist papers claimed that Patterson was instigating strife in Egyptian
society and delivering false reports to the U.S. administration that paint the
opposition as being in decline, and even called to expel her from Egypt.
Egyptians on social networks cursed Patterson and called to boycott American
products.This is not
the first time Patterson has been under public fire in Egypt. Since her appointment
in March 2011, she has faced attacks on several occasions from all social and
political circles in Egypt, both Islamic and non-Islamic. She has been accused
of being concerned only with American and Israeli interests and of trying to
create Egyptian dependence on U.S. aid. During the foreign funding affair in early
2013, lawsuits calling for her expulsion from Egypt were submitted, claiming
that she had overstepped her authority by refusing to deliver the American NGO workers implicated in the affair to
the Egyptian authorities and by sheltering them in the U.S. embassy. In March
2013, a popular protest was held outside the U.S. embassy calling to expel her
from Cairo.[2]The
following are excerpts from the statements attributed to Patterson, from her
actual statements as published by the U.S. embassy, and from the responses to
her statements in Egypt.

Patterson's Statement
– The U.S. Embassy Version vs. Egyptian Media Version

According to sources who attended
the June 18, 2013 conference, on the topic of "The U.S. Administration's
Position On The Political Situation In Egypt," Ambassador Anne Patterson
said: "Mursi is not Mubarak... There is no room for comparison because
Mubarak was in power for 30 years, which ended with his ouster, while Mursi is
an elected president who has yet to complete his first year [in
office]..." Regarding the Tamarrud popular campaign for a no-confidence
vote against Mursi, which is heading the June 30, 2013 protest, Patterson said
that campaigns such as this influence decision-makers, and that they express
the aspiration of the Egyptian people to determine its own future, and
therefore the Egyptian government must recognize this aspiration. She added: "We
support protests, but mobilizing the street will never bring about stable
democracy, which can only be achieved by elections." According to reports
in Egyptian media, Patterson also said: "The Egyptian army is our friend,
it has good relations with the U.S. administration... [But] we completely
object to military rule; Egypt should be a civil state..."[3]

However, the
transcript of Patterson's statements at the conference, which appears on the
official website of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, does not include these
statements, especially the statement that enraged the opposition, that Mursi
cannot be compared to Mubarak. According to this transcript, the statements by Patterson
that could be interpreted as supporting the MB and opposing the popular protest
on June 30 are the following: "We oppose chaos... The Government of the
United States of America supports Egypt, its people, and its government... In order to do this, the U.S. Government must
deal with the Egyptian Government. This
is the government that you and your fellow citizens elected... Throughout
Egypt's post-revolution series of elections, the United States took the
position that we would work with whoever won elections that met international
standards, and this is what we have done. Because many in the Egyptian
Government are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or its Freedom and
Justice Party, the U.S. Government must work with them across a huge range of
issues...

"Some say
that street action will produce better results than elections. To be honest, my
government and I are deeply skeptical. Egypt needs stability to get its
economic house in order, and more violence on the streets will do little more
than add new names to the lists of martyrs.
Instead, I recommend Egyptians get organized. Join or start a political party that reflects
your values and aspirations..."[4]

Egyptian
Oppositionists To Patterson: Shut Up And Mind Your Own Business

As mentioned, Egyptian
oppositionists criticized Patterson's statements and claimed that they
constitute an improper interference in Egypt's internal affairs. George Ishak,
a member of the National Salvation Front – an umbrella organization of Egyptian
opposition forces – said: "If I saw her on the street, I would tell her: Shut
up and don't interfere in affairs that do not concern you." He added:
"The American ambassador is an evil woman who incites strife."[5]
Magdi Hamdan, a member of the National Salvation Front and head of the
Democratic Front Party, also advised Patterson to "say nice things or shut
up," and added that her statements contradict the U.S.'s claim that it
supports democracies and stands by the revolution forces. According to him, the
U.S.'s only interest is Israel's security, and therefore it is defending Mursi
and the MB, who are the only ones loyal to the U.S.[6] Hisham
Abu Al-Sa'd, another member of the Democratic Front Party, likewise attacked
the U.S. interference, claiming that America's primary goal is to protect
Israel's security and that it sees Mursi and the MB as suitable for the task.
He added: "We expected the Egyptian regime to protest these statements so
as to defend its honor in the eyes of the Egyptian people... but that did not
happen."[7]A communiqué
issued by the Egyptian Communist Party described Patterson's statements as
insolent and a blatant interference in Egypt's business, and as aggression
towards the free will of the Egyptian people to oust the MB regime and complete
its revolution. The communique claimed further: "This statement at this
[particular] time was a message of support for Mursi and his allies... [given
as] a reward for their stance in support of aggression and foreign intervention
in Syria." It added that Patterson was attempting to pressure the Egyptian
army and other elements in Egypt to refrain from assisting the people in
toppling Mursi, because the imperialist forces fear the second wave of the
Egyptian revolution, which could spread to other peoples of the region and
other regions in the world and threaten their interests.[8]

Egyptian Opposition
Press: Patterson Is AnAmbassador of
the MB; She Should Be Expelled From Egypt

The Egyptian opposition press portrayed Patterson's statements as a
proclamation of support by the American government for the Mursi regime, and
Patterson as an ally of the MB and opponent of the revolution. For example, an
article titled "Profile of Anne Patterson, the [MB] Movement's Ambassador,"
published by journalist Akram Sami in the opposition Egyptian daily Al-Watan,
stated: "Despite the criticism and hatred that Egyptians direct at her,
she has managed to train the forces of political Islam to benefit her country,
and proved to her government that she can deal with the Islamic [forces] in a manner
that suits her and serves her country's interest. The American Ambassador in
Cairo, Anne Patterson, who has become a pariah [in the eyes of] the Egyptian
opposition due to her role as the 'American High Commissioner in Egypt' and because
of her constant interference in Egyptian affairs, which oversteps the boundaries
[of her office], has a great deal of experience in working with the forces of
political Islam, thanks to her activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan…"[9]The daily Al-Wafd likewise described
Patterson as "the American High Commissioner of Egypt under the MB's sponsorship"
and quoted Imad Gad, an expert at the Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, as
saying that Patterson had been appointed ambassador in Cairo "due to her
dark past, [i.e., her] involvement in planning the assassination of well-known
politicians and supervising their execution while she served as ambassador to
Columbia and Pakistan."

Gad described Patterson's recent meetings with MB
leaders, and especially her meeting with the MB deputy general guide on June
25, 2013, as "a desperate attempt on her part to demonstrate that her work
in Egypt is anchored in reality, especially after John Kerry discovered in his
recent visit to Egypt contradictions between the reality there and the reports
that Patterson had submitted to the American State Department." In Gad's
opinion, Patterson's efforts are intended to prolong the MB rule, and this in order
to justify her reports in which she claimed that the extensive popular rage has
waned due to Mursi's election.

Al-Wafd also cited 'Issam Al-Sharif, the coordinator of the Free Front for
Peaceful Change, who demanded Patterson's immediate removal on the grounds that
she has violated all accepted diplomatic norms. He said: "She has no right
to tour the provinces, but in the Mursi era, she has toured through all parts
of Egypt and has met with whoever she wanted because she is aware that the
regime is fragile and feeble." Al-Sharif warned the next American ambassador
to Egypt not to follow the example of Patterson, who, he said, does not report
the real facts to the American government and flagrantly intervenes in Egyptian
affairs, and has even charged the Coptic patriarch Tawadros to prohibit the
Copts from participating in the June 30 demonstrations.[10]

Egyptian Journalist:
Patterson Has Gone Too Far This Time In Her Interference In Egypt's Affairs

In an article in the Egypt daily Al-Misriyyoun, Muhammad Khader Al-Sharif, a member of the
Egyptian Journalists Union, wrote: "...Anne Patterson's job allows her to
reside and be [here], to work and to come and go, but this time 'Her
Excellency' went too far in intervening in Egyptian affairs. She meets with
whoever she wants and sets a fire amongst the people...

"[Her recent statements were] a flagrant
intervention in Egyptian affairs, which no Arab or foreign ambassador and no
state may intervene in. [Patterson] sticks her nose into everything in a manner
that recalls the days of Lord Cromer, the British High Commissioner during the
British occupation [in 1883-1907]... who was one of the major advocates of Westernization
and one of the leading colonialists in the Islamic world, and one who formulated
the policy that colonialism practiced [back then] and still practices [today]
in an attempt to liquidate the foundations of the Islamic world and the Arab
nation.

"Neither I nor anyone else who subscribes to
a respectable nationalism can agree to the ambassador's intervention in
Egyptian affairs, and particularly [in the affairs of] the army, even if [the
army] receives annual American assistance, however large it may be..."[11]

Irate Responses
On The Social Networks To Patterson's Alleged Statements

Many used the social networks to express their outrage over Patterson's alleged
statements. For example, the businessman and founder of the Free Egyptians party,
Naguib Sawiris, wrote on his Twitter account: "Do us a favor and shut
up."[12]

Sawiris' tweet

In response to reports that the U.S. intends to
replace Patterson with the current U.S. ambassador to Jordan (rumors that were
since denied), the editor of the Egyptian opposition weekly Al-Usbu',
Mustafa Bakri, wrote on his Facebook account: "[Patterson] has played a
dubious role in Egypt by submitting erroneous reports to the [American]
government in which she sided with the MB at the expense of other forces.
Washington has promptly decided [to recall Patterson from Cairo] due to the
crises that were caused by her declarations about the army and the events of
the [upcoming] 'June 30 Revolution.'"[13]

Bakri's message on Facebook

Responses On Facebook
Page Of American Embassy In Cairo

Egyptian citizens expressed their rage over Patterson's statement and
"the American intervention in Egyptian life" on the Facebook page of
the American Embassy in Cairo. Some called to boycott American products, and others
wrote English messages brutally cursing and insulting the ambassador. The
following is a sample of messages in Arabic:[14]"Patterson should stop playing [the role] of
High Commissioner in Egypt. Stop intervening in Egyptian internal affairs. Stop
supporting terrorists, your policy has failed the world over. Egypt will not
fall, to your chagrin and the chagrin of your ambassador."

"If you try to intervene in Egyptian affairs,
we will launch a campaign similar to the 'Tamarrud' campaign to boycott all
American products. Stop intervening in Egyptian affairs."

"I would like to say to the American
ambassador in Cairo, Anne Patterson: The Egyptian people are unlike the people
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where traders in religion and murderers are in
power. Whoever plays with fire will be burned by it."

"We as a people respect all the other peoples
and oppose America's intervention in Egyptian life. [We oppose] its support for
a regime that is fascist and suppresses liberties, and [its act of] forcing the
Egyptian people to surrender to this regime for the sake of American interests.
Where is the liberty you advocate?"